Author Archives: Ramoo

Revealed: How US State Department ‘Twists Arms’ on Monsanto’s Behalf

Posted on by
Reply

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Biotech_Report_US.pdf

Selling seeds, selling out democracy: US State Department does biotech industry’s bidding

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer

The U.S. State Department does the bidding of biotech giants like Monsanto around the world by “twisting the arms of countries” and engaging in vast public campaign schemes to push the sale of genetically modified seeds, according to a new report released Tuesday by Food & Water Watch.

(International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria)The report, Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda, which pulls from over 900 State Department diplomatic cables (obtained via WikiLeaks), reveals an environment wherein US ambassadors act as sales representatives for the global biotech industry.

U.S. ambassadors and their staffs actively lobby foreign governments to adopt pro-biotechnology policies and laws, create “rigorous public relations campaigns to improve the image of biotechnology” and challenge “commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — including opposing genetically engineered (GE) food labeling laws.”

“It really goes beyond promoting the U.S.’s biotech industry and agriculture,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “It really gets down to twisting the arms of countries and working to undermine local democratic movements that may be opposed to biotech crops, and pressuring foreign governments to also reduce the oversight of biotech crops.”

As FWW reports, the State Department has gone to great lengths to see that biotech companies’ desires are met:

  • The U.S. State Department’s multifaceted efforts to promote the biotechnology industry overseas: The State Department targeted foreign reporters, hosted and coordinated pro-biotech conferences and public events and brought foreign opinion-makers to the United States on high-profile junkets to improve the image of agricultural biotechnology overseas and overcome widespread public opposition to GE crops and foods.
  • The State Department’s coordinated campaign to promote biotech business interests: The State Department promoted not only pro-biotechnology policies but also the products of biotech companies. The strategy cables explicitly “protect the interests” of biotech exporters, “facilitate trade in agribiotech products” and encourage the cultivation of GE crops in more countries, especially in the developing world.
  • The State Department’s determined advocacy to press the developing world to adopt biotech crops: The diplomatic cables document a coordinated effort to lobby countries in the developing world to pass legislation and implement regulations favored by the biotech seed industry. This study examines the State Department lobbying campaigns in Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria to pass pro-biotech laws.
  • The State Department’s efforts to force other nations to accept biotech crop and food imports: The State Department works with the U.S. Trade Representative to promote the export of biotech crops and to force nations that do not want these imports to accept U.S. biotech foods and crops.

“It’s not surprising that Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow want to maintain and expand their control of the $15 billion global biotech seed market, but it’s appalling that the State Department is complicit in supporting their goals despite public and government opposition in several countries,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of Organic Consumers Association. “American taxpayer’s money should not be spent advancing the goals of a few giant biotech companies.”

“The biotech agriculture model using costly seeds and agrichemicals forces farmers onto a debt treadmill that is neither economically nor environmentally viable,” said Ben Burkett, President of the National Family Farm Coalition.  “An overwhelming number of farmers in the developing world reject biotech crops as a path to sustainable agricultural development or food sovereignty.”

“Thanks, Monsanto. And thanks, State Department. Not only are you selling seeds, you’re selling out democracy,” Hauter concludes.

Farmers’ suicide rates soar above the rest

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/sainath/farmers-suicide-rates-soar-above-the-rest/article4725101.ece

Suicide rates among Indian farmers were a chilling 47 per cent higher than they were for the rest of the population in 2011. In some of the States worst hit by the agrarian crisis, they were well over 100 per cent higher. The new Census 2011 data reveal a shrinking farmer population. And it is on this reduced base that the farm suicides now occur.

Apply the new Census totals to the suicide data of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the results are grim. Sample: A farmer in Andhra Pradesh is three times more likely to commit suicide than anyone else in the country, excluding farmers. And twice as likely to do so when compared to non-farmers in his own State. The odds are not much better in Maharashtra, which remained the worst State for such suicides across a decade.

“The picture remains dismal,” says Prof. K. Nagaraj, an economist at the Asian College of Journalism, Chennai. Prof. Nagaraj’s 2008 study on farm suicides in India remains the most important one on the subject. “The intensity of farm suicides shows no real decline,” he says. “Nor do the numbers show a major fall. They remain concentrated in the farming heartlands of five key States. The crisis there continues. And the adjusted farmers’ suicide rate for 2011 is in fact slightly higher than it was in 2001.” And that’s after heavy data fudging at the State level.

Five States account for two-thirds of all farm suicides in the country, as NCRB data show. These are Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The share of these ‘Big 5’ in total farm suicides was higher in 2011 than it was in 2001. At the same time, the new Census data show that four of these States have far fewer farmers than they did a decade ago. Only Maharashtra reports an increase in their numbers.

Nationwide, the farmers’ suicide rate (FSR) was 16.3 per 100,000 farmers in 2011. That’s a lot higher than 11.1, which is the rate for the rest of the population. And slightly higher than the FSR of 15.8 in 2001.

In Maharashtra, for instance, the rate is 29.1 suicides per 100,000 farmers (‘Main cultivators’). Which is over 160 per cent higher than that for all Indians excluding farmers. Such gaps exist in other States, too. In as many as 16 of 22 major States, the farm suicide rate was higher than the rate among the rest of the population (RRP) in 2011.

The data for 2011 are badly skewed, with States like Chhattisgarh declaring ‘zero’ farm suicides that year. The same State reported an increase in total suicides that same year. But claimed that not one of these was a farmer. What happens if we take the average number of farm suicides reported by the State in three years before 2011? Then Chhattisgarh’s FSR is more than 350 per cent higher than the rate among the rest of the country’s population.

In 1995, the ‘Big 5’ accounted for over half of all farm suicides in India. In 2011, they logged over two-thirds of them. Given this concentration, even the dismal all-India figures tend to make things seem less terrible than they are.

Ten States show a higher farm suicide rate in 2011 than in 2001. That includes the major farming zones of Punjab and Haryana. The average farm suicide rate in the ‘Big 5’ is slightly up, despite a decline in Karnataka. And also a fall in Maharashtra. The latter has the worst record of any State. At least 53,818 farmers’ suicides since 1995. So how come it shows a lower FSR now?

Well, because Census 2011 tells us the State has added 1.2 million farmers (‘main cultivators’) since 2001. That’s against a nationwide decline of 7.7 million in the same years. So Maharashtra’s farm suicide rate shows a fall. Yet, its farm suicide numbers have not gone down by much. And a farmer in this State is two-and-a-half times more likely to kill himself than anyone else in the country, other than farmers.

Karnataka, in 2011, saw a lot less of farm suicides than it did a decade ago. And so, despite having fewer farmers than it did in 2001, the State shows a lower FSR. Yet, even the ‘lower’ farm suicide rates in both Maharashtra and Karnataka are way above the rate for the rest of the country.

These figures are obtained by applying the new farm population totals of Census 2011 to farm suicide numbers of the NCRB. The Census records cultivators. The police count suicides. In listing suicides, the State governments and police tend to count only those with a title to land as farmers.

“Large numbers of farm suicides still occur,” says Prof. Nagaraj. “Only that seems not to be recognised, officially and politically. Is the ‘conspiracy of silence’ back in action?” A disturbing trend has gained ground with Chhattisgarh’s declaration of ‘zero’ farm suicides. (That’s despite having had 4,700 in 36 months before the ‘zero’ declaration). Puducherry has followed suit. Others will doubtless do the same. Punjab and Haryana have in several years claimed ‘zero’ women farmers’ suicides. (Though media and study reports in the same years suggest otherwise). This trend must at some point fatally corrupt the data.

At least 270,940 Indian farmers have taken their lives since 1995, NCRB records show. This occurred at an annual average of 14,462 in six years, from 1995 to 2000. And at a yearly average of 16,743 in 11 years between 2001 and 2011. That is around 46 farmers’ suicides each day, on average. Or nearly one every half-hour since 2001.

Debate: GM Crops – Seeds of A Divide.

Posted on by
Reply
Outlook India Magazine | January 28, 2013
 
The already heated debate about genetically modified (GM) foods in India has intensified thanks to a dramatic change in stance by environmentalist and author Mark Lynas,who now says are the answer to global . While India awaits two crucial reports on the topic, we interviewed Lynas and noted ecologist Vandana Shiva (who remains anti-GM foods and has borne the brunt of Lynas’s attack) to see what they have to say. Excerpts:
 
“My main concern is to defend farmer choice. You’ll never convince people like Vandana Shiva that GM crops can have beneficial uses as her opposition is faith based, unscientific. She’s accused me of being in Monsanto’s pay, an outright lie….” Mark Lynas 
“Lynas’s turnaround is not guided by science, for science is not like Nestle’s instant coffee…. In contrast to claims of the agri-chemical industry and its spin masters, GMOS do not increase yields, nor do they reduce chemicals use.”  Vandana Shiva
 

 

 

Enhancing agricultural livelihoods through community institutions in Bihar, India (English)

Posted on by
Reply
Author(s): Behera, Debaraj; Chaudhary, Arvind Kumar; Vutukuru, Vinay Kumar; Gupta, Abhishek; Machiraju, Sitaramachandra; Shah, Parmesh
Source: World Bank | January 2013
 
Inline image 1
 
’s agriculture sector employs more than eighty percent of the labor force and more than fourfifths of these farmers are small and marginal. They have one of the lowest agricultural productivity in India that has not increased due to several constraints. , a project jointly supported by the World Bank and the Government of Bihar, has piloted, customized and eventually scaled-up several innovative livelihood interventions to improve the well-being of poor households in Bihar. A number of innovative aspects account for the success of these programs in the state. Foremost among these is the fact that it was implemented through community-driven and community-owned institutions. The institutional platform that was facilitated by the project has enabled the creation of a single-window system at the doorstep of small and marginal farmers. Farmers can now demand better services from the public sector, access credit from commercial banks, and experiment and customize various technologies. This note will focus on System of Crop Intesification’ (SCI), which has evolved from a well-known farming methodology called System of Rice Intensification. It has been customized and adopted for wheat, green gram, oil seeds and vegetables in Bihar. The participant farmers have witnessed 86% increase in rice productivity and 72% increase in wheat productivity. The profitability of rice cultivation has increased 2.5 times and has almost doubled for oil-seeds. Since 2008, implementation of SCI has contributed to an additional increase of around US$10.7 million.  Read more >>

Illegal planting of GM corn during field trials by Monsanto in UAS, Dharwad, Karnataka: GM Free Coalition

Posted on by
Reply

Coalition for GM-Free India

April 9th 2012

To

Smt.Jayanti Natarajan,

Minister for Environment & Forests ( Independent Charge )

Ministry for Environment & Forests.

Dear Madam,

Re: Illegal planting of during field trials by Monsanto in UAS, Dharwad, Karnataka

Ref : Letter from the MoEF dtd 12017/10/2012/CS-III dated 19th March, 2012.

We appreciate the response from the Ministry’s Gentic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) on the above subject; however we would like to point out that extracts from the minutes of the GEAC meeting 115 on February 8, 2012 does nothing to establish the legality of planting NK603. The GEAC minutes have not addressed or answered our representation about this serious matter of illegal GMO planting and the consequent threat to biosafety.

In fact the explanations from GEAC raises more questions, obfuscates issues and tries to avoid the issue of illegal planting without addressing it. Given below are the pertinent issues that point to the fact that our original representation about illegal planting stands valid and in addition, there now seems to be an effort to cover up the issue and make it seem legal and in order.

  1. As per point 1 (of the GEAC facts of the case from minutes of meeting 115) the protocol/experimental design submitted by the applicant (Monsanto for Biosafety Research Level-I of its GM maize) and approved by GEAC on four different occasions did not include the treatment with NK6031 as comparator. This means that at no previous stage of field trials of this transgenic corn, NK603 was used as a comparator.
  1. There were 4 different applications made to GEAC during the BRL-II trials of the same GM hybrid corns. (BRL-II, seed production and IRM). Three of them were taken up by GEAC during its 104th meeting on 15/11/2010 and the fourth one during its 105th meeting on 8/12/2010 (relevant excerpts from GEAC minutes attached for ready reference).
  1. The trial under question is the BRL-II which was discussed and approved on 15/11/2010 during the 104thmeeting of GEAC. The application from the applicant did not seek the use of NK603 as comparator. GEAC’s approval statement2 and its subsequent letter to the applicant did not carry any statement permitting the use NK603 as comparator. (Attached GEAC letter to applicant).
  1. Therefore the point 4 (of the GEAC facts of the case table from minutes of meeting 115) stating that “field design included the inclusion of the treatment with event NK603 as comparator” is completely incorrect.
  1. On the other hand, the GEAC minutes and the letter to the applicant with instructions about the trials protocols repeatedly and specifically state that the objectives of the trial (BRL-II) is to study the efficacy of transgenic corn hybrids and compare them with their non-transgenic counter parts (Attached GEAC letter to applicant).
  1. In parallel, while considering the application for IRM testing Monsanto had sought the permission to use NK603 as part of the refuge in a bag strategy. GEAC had explicitly refused permission for the use of NK603 as detailed here: “5.6.4 The Committee noted that the corn hybrids expressing NK603 has not been approved for environmental release and, therefore, rejected the request of the applicant to use transgenic corn hybrids expressing NK603 while conducting IRM trials for ascertaining refuge strategy.”3
  1. From the above points it is amply clear that GEAC had decided that the use of NK603 cannot be allowed as the GMO is not approved for environmental release.

  1. Further the notes from meeting 115 of GEAC mention that the same BRL-II of Monsanto’s maize trials going on at Anand, Gujarat is being conducted without treatment with NK603.

In view of the above how did the committee (of GEAC) during the discussions on 8th February, 2012 (meeting 115), reviewing these very facts conclude as follows: “the Committee noted the fact that the GEAC in its 104th and 105th meeting held on 15.11.2010 and 08.12.2010 respectively had approved the request of the applicant to conduct BRL-II trials with the inclusion of the treatment with event NK603 as a comparator.”4 ?

  • Where is the evidence that NK603 “unapproved for environmental release” according to GEAC’s own decision and disallowed for the IRM trial on those grounds, was for some reason allowed to be used as comparator for BRL-II trials of Monsanto maize?

  • How can we simply believe this assertion about the use of this unapproved GMO (NK603):

    • which is not backed by evidence

    • which stands contrary to GEAC’s own pronouncements in the same meeting about NK603

    • and which is not part of any previous or concurrent field trial protocol of the same crop in any other location other than UAS Dharwad?

  • Why has the applicant not been asked for any explanation in this whole process and why is the regulator defending the applicant?

  • While bringing these points we would also like to put it on record that in the sequence of events GEAC has tried more than once (Points 4, 13, 14) to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant and incorrect facts.

  • Also the regulator has cast aspersions on the head of the compliance committee in order to defend the applicant. This either means that people designated to do compliance and monitoring do not know the regulations and protocols, which in turn means that our assertion about the threat to biosafety due to unsupervised trials is again validated. If not that, then the officials are being made into scapegoats to defend a biotech-multinational like Monsanto which puts under the scanner the impartiality of GEAC and the stringency of its processes. How can we accept that the Principal Scientist of the Institute which was made into the supervising authority for these trials, which drew up the trial protocols, did not know what he was verifying and would have just made a frivolous remark without any basis during his monitoring visit on May 5th 2011 to the field trial? 

In view of the fact that no evidence and no scientific reasoning has been provided to establish the legality of the use of NK603, we believe that the planting of NK603 as comparator was illegal. We further allege that GEAC is involved in covering up this serious violation without being able to provide any reasoning or evidence.

 

 

The Coalition reiterates its demand that:

 

  • The Minister for Environment & Forests fix accountability on Monsanto and its Indian associates for violating Indian law.
  • MoEF take action against the regulators who repeatedly fail to check the violations of the corporations.

 

 

Thanking you

Yours truly

 

Sridhar Radhakrishnan,

Convener, Coalition for a GM-Free India

H-3, Jawahar Nagar, Kawdiar, Thiruvananthapuram – 695003, Kerala.

Ph : 09995358205

email : mail.thanal@gmail.com, website : www.indiagminfo.org

 

Copy to : Sri M F Farooqui, Chairman, GEAC

Ms Ranjini Warrier, Member Secretary, GEAC

1 NK603 is an unapproved GM HT corn whose planting is therefore illegal in India.

2 Minutes of the 104th meeting of GEAC on 15/11/2010 http://www.moef.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/decision-nov-104.pdf

3 Minutes of the 104th meeting of GEAC on 15/11/2010 http://www.moef.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/decision-nov-104.pdf

Robustness and Strategies of Adaptation among Farmer Varieties of African Rice (Oryza glaberrima) and Asian Rice (Oryza sativa) across West Africa

Posted on by
Reply

“New research from West Africa challenges the widely held view that African and Asian ‘farmer rice’ varieties have only local value owing to their poor ability to adapt to adverse environmental conditions.

Researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands and AfricaRice in Benin studied 26 varieties of rice developed and cultivated locallyby farmers in five West African countries between 2006 and 2012. They were varieties of both African rice (Oryza glaberrima) and Asian rice (Oryza sativa). Their findings suggest that farmer rice varieties can grow without fertilisers, require no special maintenance and can develop ways of coping with stress. This makes them highly adaptable to a wide range of environments.”

For the full article, see http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034801

Odisha holds a workshop on ‘Conservation of Rice Diversity’

Posted on by
Reply
A state-level workshop on ‘Conservation of ’ and ‘Marketing of Organic Rice for Livelihood Improvement of Small holder Farmers’ was organized by NIRMAN, a grassroots organization working towards sustainable agriculture and conservation of agro- at IMAGE, Bhubaneswar.
 
Dr. R.S. Gopalan, IAS, Director, Agriculture and Food Production, Dr. J. K. Roy, Retd. Joint Director, CRRI & renowned rice scientist, Natabar Sarangi, rice conservationist and organic farmer jointly inaugurated the workshop.
Prasant Mohanty, Executive Director of NIRMAN delved upon the history and highlighted that rice diversity existed in Odisha, which happens to be one of the birth places of rice. India is a global center of origin and diversity of rice. Over 60,000 distinct rice seed varieties have been collected by Indian agricultural research centres. Many more grew in farmers’ fields, adapted to diverse conditions.
 
About 19,000 rice varieties were collected by Dr Richharia from Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, of which 1600 varieties were found to be high-yielding. He also raised concern for the promotion of hybrid rice variety when traditional variety has the high yielding potentials.
Mr. Sadangi shared his experience of cultivation of rice in organic way and conservation of rice diversity by his farm field. He emphasized that organic farming and cultivation of indigenous rice is the only solution to save farmer, consumer, water and environment.
 
Syed Ghani Khan from Karnataka shared his experience of conservation of 250 varieties of rice in his own farm and was awarded a farmer breeder for developing new variety. Dr. Jafrana Keshari Roy, renowned Rice Scientist said it the wisdom of our farmers due to which traditional rice diversity exists even today. He emphasized the contribution of farmers in conservation of rice diversity.
 
Genetic diversity is the basic raw-material for crop Improvement. Odisha is bestowed with many natural resources including genetic diversity of rice (Secondary centre of origin of rice). The state’s traditional varieties have many unique characters like tolerance to flood, water logging, salinity, drought, pest & disease tolerance, scented rices, fast-flood preparations and contain high grain number.
 
As of date, Odisha has total 6700 varieties of rice. Dr Roy also cited the effects of Green Revolution which has caused irreversible damage of bi-diversity degradation. He emphasized that govt. should extend support to farmers for adoption of in situ conservation of traditional variety of rice.
 
Mr. Debalu from Sanjeevani, Araku Valley, Andhra Pradesh participated and shared his experience in the workshop. Mr. R. S. Gopalan, Director, Dept. of Agriculture and Food Production shared the state’s experience on conservation of traditional rice variety in Odisha. He has made efforts to getting registration of traditional variety of Rice by Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Right Authority (PPV & FRA), New Delhi. He said they have indigenous varieties with a high yielding potential. “Our scientists should research on Desi varieties and should have open mind,” he said.
 
Mr. Krishna Prasad, Director of Sahaj Samruddh, an organization in Bangalore promoting organic farming and conservation of local variety participated in the workshop and shared how they have successfully created models for marketing of organic rice variety and he wished that it should be replicated in Odisha for the benefit of farmers conserving local variety.
 
He also said that we can boost conservation through linking farmers with market for better prices of their produce. The workshop came up with a follow up plan of organising an Organic Mela in Bhubaneswar to provide platform for organic farmers to sale their produce in next 2 to 3 months.
Organic farmers, NGO representative, Govt. Officials and academicians actively participated in the workshop. There was a rice seed exhibition outside of the IMAGE Conference hall. NGOs like NIRMAN, Sahaj Samrudh, Bangalore, Sanjeevani, Andhra Paradesh, Agriculture dept. of Govt. of Orissa, Amhinsa Club participated in the workshop.

Taming food inflation in India by Ashok Gulati

Posted on by
Reply

Taming in India by Ashok Gulati released yesterday talks about raising agriculture wages as one of the main reasons for raising and suggests mechanisation to increase farm labour productivity and also moving to direct cash transfer for food, fuel, power and fertiliser subsidies.

though much of the economic calculation seems to be complicated and needs some expert to analyse, i feel the last few papers by Ashok Gulati are spelling out what is in offing for indian farmers…..

A Harvest of Heat:Agribusiness andClimate Change

Posted on by
Reply

A Harvest of Heat:Agribusiness andClimate Change
How Six Food Industry Giants Are Warming the Planet

Agriculture’s critical dependence on fossil fuels and the clearing of forests, grasslands and prairies for farming are the top two factors responsible for today’s massive global increases in CO2.

http://www.ifg.org/pdf/AgriBiz&Climate4-8.pdf